Bottom Half Finalist?

So, between them the remaining 8 players in the bottom half have:

0 slams
0 slam finals
1 slam semi final
0 masters titles or finals

One of these guys is going to pick up a runners up cheque and 1,200 ATP points. Who do we think it will be?

In my view, it's mainly between 3 of them - Anderson, Querrey and Shapovalov. Lorenzi is the real outsider. Personally, I'm going for Querrey. Hard to see Shapovalov making it all the way as a qualifier (immense talent though he is) and, whilst he's been playing the best tennis, I think Anderson will get nervous if he's within sight of a slam final.

Shapovalov for me. Reminds me of a young Johnny Mac at Wimbledon.

Maybe Zverev is going to make the final after all, though we thought that's impossible after Coric' win earlier this week

My money would be on Sam Querrey. The only niggling doubt for me would be can he handle the pressure in his home tournament with the elevated expectations.

laverfan wrote:Shapovalov for me. Reminds me of a young Johnny Mac at Wimbledon.

irrefutable...

Want: Shapovalov, Anderson or Pouille

Don't want: Querrey or PCB.

The problem is, Rafa is playing poorly and I can't see anyone stopping him, unless Fed finds some magic.

Just know we'll see PCB bend over 2, 2 & 1 against Rafa in the final.

If Shap makes it, at least it's something of a breakout. PCB or Querrey is just an mid ranked player having a run with a lucky draw.

I picked Pouille, but it was almost random - I find 4-5 of them having all very similar chances:

Lorenzi is the only true outsider for me.  Schwartzman and Zverev I also think are less likely to make it (though I would not be shocked if they did).

Out of the remaining five, I can see roughly offsetting pros and cons for all of them:

Anderson I thought was closest in the past to exhibiting form that could genuinely lead a player to a slam final, but that was in 2015, and he has struggled since then.

Querrey is the only one to have been to a slam SF before (and he did it just this past Wimbledon) and is playing close to the form of his life.  On the other hand, and in spite of that, he probably strikes me as having overall weakest game of the five.

Carreno Busta has less weaponry than the other 4, but he must be doing something more right than they are doing because he is ranked higher than them.

Shapovalov has - by far - the most raw potential and he has quite possibly played better tennis here than the other 4, but with his age, and with him having played qualies already, one wonders whether he is due for a letdown of some sort.

Pouille I think is the second behind Shapovalov in the raw talent department, and he does have game that could work at the USO, but his form of late has in general been suspect.  In the end I picked him because I think if he plays well, he can probably beat the other guys, and he is just of the right age, where he might finally be able to break through.

Wouldn't disagree with too much of the above post.

I enjoy Pouille and Shapovalov's style of play. I also think they, plus perhaps Querrey or Anderson are capable of big performances which can make a final interesting.

PCB is the most consistent - but isn't going to beat or even trouble Rafa or Fed. Wilander compared him to David Ferrer earlier, i don't think they have similar games but similar outcomes against the very best.

Wow, interesting thread. I literally just this minute saw Cilic lost. Who saw this QF coming? Pablo Carreño Busta vs Diego Schwartzman I bet no-one predicted it. PCB not losing a set! I did not realize PCB was seeded as high as 12. That 19 rank I would have guessed about 30 or 40. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/pablo-carreno-busta/cd85/rankings-breakdown

I bet Murray is feeling a bit sheepish about his withdrawal now! Imagine if Federer-Nadal go to an epic 4 hour 5 setter and then one of them withdraws before the final! OK, but still getting ahead of myself, will probably be putting a jinx on Nadal due out on court soon.

Henman Bill wrote:I bet Murray is feeling a bit sheepish about his withdrawal now! Imagine if Federer-Nadal go to an epic 4 hour 5 setter and then one of them withdraws before the final! OK, but still getting ahead of myself, will probably be putting a jinx on Nadal due out on court soon.

My thoughts all week.

Have to remember that Querrey beat Murray at Wimbledon less than two months ago. Don't think that Murray would have been any fitter than he was then if they had met at USO. So would have expected a similar result. Anderson has also beaten Murray at USO in 2015.

Calder106 wrote:Have to remember that Querrey beat Murray at Wimbledon less than two months ago. Don't think that Murray would have been any fitter than he was then if they had met at USO. So would have expected a similar result.  Anderson has also beaten Murray at USO in 2015.  

You are addressing a different point to that which we are addressing - I would agree with you that if Murray had decided to play there is no reason for imagining that he would have been fit enough to beat either of these guys - his view that he wouldn't have been up to it should be respected.

The point we are making is the different one that if he had withdrawn before the draw was made it would not have been so lop-sided - it would at least have had Fedal on opposite sides.

I was always going to say Anderson

Henman Bill wrote:I bet Murray is feeling a bit sheepish about his withdrawal now! Imagine if Federer-Nadal go to an epic 4 hour 5 setter and then one of them withdraws before the final! OK, but still getting ahead of myself, will probably be putting a jinx on Nadal due out on court soon.

I've criticised Andy earlier for his late decision making, but only because he should have been writing the year off two months ago

I fail to see, why he should feel guilty about forcing a Fedal earlier match. What is this? Champions league, where the authorities would love permanent Real / Barcelona finals?

This kind of special consideration for the two greats, hacks me off - even more than them always getting the best courts, no matter where they are ranked of what their form is

The world outside tennis is obsessed with these two. Most think that Novak is some kind of dodgy Serbian impostor!! I'd expect intelligent fans on these boards to, yes be reflective about what could have been and not give the impression that tennis is all about them

Personally, I think its hilarious. Mainly because it winds up so many Fedal fans, who think their heroes have some kind of special status. I'd bet Andy's view is nearer mine than feeling sheepish

banbrotam wrote:This kind of special consideration for the two greats, hacks me off - even more than them always getting the best courts, no matter where they are ranked of what their form is

Gate receipts and attendance is proof-positive what these two 'greats' bring to the court. Ashe was half-empty watching Anderson v Querrey, despite Querrey being American.

banbrotam wrote:The world outside tennis is obsessed with these two. Most think that Novak is some kind of dodgy Serbian impostor!! I'd expect intelligent fans on these boards to, yes be reflective about what could have been and not give the impression that tennis is all about them

FedAl are great ambassadors of the game, universally. They are the 'face' of Tennis. Their careers and matches have enthralled many a spectator. Would you expect anything less? Think of Cricket and the frenzy it evokes for fans when big names show up.

banbrotam wrote:Personally, I think its hilarious. Mainly because it winds up so many Fedal fans, who think their heroes have some kind of special status. I'd bet Andy's view is nearer mine than feeling sheepish

Sports economics drives many a sport. It is the business of sport.

I had exactly a siimlar view when Novak-Rafa faced off one year at RG in the semi final when they were obviously the two top clay players that year. I would have preferred that to be the final as well.

Back to the vote, I see not a single vote for Anderson or PCB - what a bunch of geniuses we are.

laverfan wrote:

banbrotam wrote:This kind of special consideration for the two greats, hacks me off - even more than them always getting the best courts, no matter where they are ranked of what their form is

Gate receipts and attendance is proof-positive what these two 'greats' bring to the court. Ashe was half-empty watching Anderson v Querrey, despite Querrey being American.

banbrotam wrote:The world outside tennis is obsessed with these two. Most think that Novak is some kind of dodgy Serbian impostor!! I'd expect intelligent fans on these boards to, yes be reflective about what could have been and not give the impression that tennis is all about them

FedAl are great ambassadors of the game, universally. They are the 'face' of Tennis. Their careers and matches have enthralled many a spectator. Would you expect anything less? Think of Cricket and the frenzy it evokes for fans when big names show up.

banbrotam wrote:Personally, I think its hilarious. Mainly because it winds up so many Fedal fans, who think their heroes have some kind of special status. I'd bet Andy's view is nearer mine than feeling sheepish

Sports economics drives many a sport. It is the business of sport.

I know all of this. Stadiums will remain half full, whilst the other players are so under-promoted. If those two decide to retire at the end of this year, then Tennis's inability to show that they aren't all dewy eyed when Fedal are in town, could cause them more of an issue

And the style of play of Querrey and Anderson, admittedly won't fill a stadium

However, in past slams, there have been numerous matches better looking than Fedal ones (or Novak / Andy) and they get overlooked. I understand that, i.e. the best footie clubs are on TV the most. However, I don't see why there should be some regret over the current seedings, because some think they have a right to a Fedal final, otherwise they're been short changed

banbrotam wrote:
Stadiums will remain half full, whilst the other players are so under-promoted.

....

However, in past slams, there have been numerous matches better looking than Fedal ones (or Novak / Andy) and they get overlooked. I understand that, i.e. the best footie clubs are on TV the most. However, I don't see why there should be some regret over the current seedings, because some think they have a right to a Fedal final, otherwise they're been short changed

You are talking about getting 20,000 people to turn up to a tennis match, which is a huge number when you think of it (as is 10,000 for most matches).  For such a match Fedal promote themselves - it's as simple as that.  From the moment Federer won that extraordinary match vs. Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 he was on everybody's radar (I am talking about people outside tennis anoraks - I know he was already on their radar), and when he came good in 2003 he was, "that hugely talented guy who beat Sampras, and who also knows how to conduct himself."  Nadal did something very similar when he beat Federer at Miami in 2004 and went on to break through the next year.  But, even more crucially, they kept on delivering stylistically and in terms of quality so that matches involving them were reliably interesting and significant occasions.

No amount of third-party promotion of a player or a particular match can replace that - and whilst I have seen plenty of great matches not involving Fedal, many of them are not easy to pre-promote (or to predict as potentially great matches) unless the players involved have already done the hard work of acquiring a reputation through their play.  Such matches tend to be the sort that spectators are very pleased they watched, but there's no obvious way to get people who don't really know about tennis to turn up to watch them in the sort of numbers that Slam venues can accommodate (Think of a personal conversation - "I'm going to Wimbledon tomorrow... Who are you going to see... Federer... Oh, lucky you..." Try that vs. any number of other very talented players, Berdych or Nishkori or Querrey or Zverev..... you name 'em). There have always been top players who are box-office and also-rans who are less easy to promote - but the dominance of Fedal, Djoko, Muzza, and Wawrinka mean that this era is more polarised than most.

Anyway, for me it's not so much about who I want to watch, it's about the integrity of the competition.  Whilst knock-out sport means that draws can always open up, the extra significance of a Slam means that somebody who gets through to a slam Final or Semi should at least have faced the prospect of needing to beat one of the top two seeds, or a player who was good enough on the day to beat them a round or so before.

Anderson, who had zero votes, makes it to 2017 Final. Reminds me of 2006 or 2007 AO.